“We’re not bad people. We just come from a bad place.”
And I missed this, how???!!!
I love your work. Love it.
(via whyyourwelcome)
I don’t like it anymore and I shouldn’t have signed this.
Well, here it is, SHAME. Acrylic and words from French newspaper talking about sex addiction. GO WATCH THIS MOVIE ! ( but not for the “naked Fassy” please ! )
I’m a bit disappointed that I failed at drawing the pain and all the sadness I felt. FUCK
It’s not McFassy stuff, but I’m trying to draw some Cherik porn. FAIL.
"Love is the only thing I can compare it to. Sometimes we’ll be on set and I’ll just grunt and I’ll get a grunt back and we’ll know what each other wants. Other times he’s finishing my sentences and I’m finishing his. It’s odd because I don’t really question it. I’ve never questioned it. But one of the things I’ve found is that not everyone can do what Michael does, and I didn’t know that. I came from working with actors in a very different way and… I don’t know, it’s very difficult to put my finger on it."
— Steve McQueen on his relationship with Michael Fassbender (via browngirlslovefassy)
(Source: littlewhitelies.co.uk, via browngirlslovefassy)
"We’re all going to die one day. I’m stealing that off Steve; it’s what he’d say when he ordered me to take my clothes off. ‘WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE ONE DAY!’"
— Michael Fassbender on the rather violent manner that Steve McQueen asked him to get his kit off….. (via thegunnersdaughter)
Michael Fassbender GQ Cover Magazine Contest
So I have an extra GQ of Michael’s cover so I thought it would be fun to do a little contest!
So I’m going to pick a winner on December 14th using a random generator.
- Only reblogging will count
- Reblog as much as you’d like
- Must Be Following FassbendertheGinger
On December 14th I will announce and message the winner! Since I need to send it off on the 16th, I will need a fast reply.
Have fun!
Michael Fassbender & Steve McQueen bring Shame to Studio Q
(Source: deltascontradiction)
… so michael fassbender’s new movie, shame, got an NC-17 rating.
because of… explicit sexual scenes. never mind the great reviews, now nobody’s going to watch it because of the stigma surrounding the rating. blue valentine initially received an NC-17 rating because of (i haven’t seen it yet) cunnilingus. i’m not sure how explicit it was, but apparently oral sex is only okay when it’s female-on-male or female-on-female.
anyway, it’s really, really, really annoying that movies that involve ripping heads off and crazy explicit blood and guts and gore are apparently more appropriate for minors than sex. like jack nicholson says:
“If you suck on a tit, the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe, it gets a PG.”
because sex is, as everyone knows, totally gross and no one does it. so accordingly, if on-screen sex is more than random bare skin shots and heavy breathing, it’s totally unnatural. america has a sex problem. possibly because americans are outwardly laid-back but inwardly uptight about issues like sex.
remember when all those parental watchdog groups were outraged over the idea of SEX ON GLEE? remember when said sex was arguably less explicit than all those make-out sessions that’d already been aired over the past few years? it’s also arguable that offended groups were only offended because one of the sex scenes would be between two males.
ANYWAY TANGENT. i was going to watch go watch shame in theaters, but asian people are even more uptight about sex (as in, i’m not even 100% sure that my parents have had sex before), and my city is over 60% asian. if they ever got wind of a local theater choosing to show an NC-17 film, they would probably form their own watchdog group and throw rice at the theater. i mean literally, if our family is watching a movie together and there is a make-out scene in it, my dad will get up and leave and ask me why i’m such a pervert.
and let’s face it, NC-17 movies are hardly a moneymaker. and, speaking truthfully now, movies are about making money, at least to those distributing them, so regardless of quality, a movie like shame will never make as much money as breaking dawn, part 1. it’s very sad that torture porn can scrape an “R” rating, but anything sexual that the american public doesn’t want to see (lady parts and once again, sex) necessitates a harsher rating. obviously, there are exceptions when the content is too violent, but that bar is set so much higher than the maximum sexuality allowed in an “R” film.
does the MPAA not understand that people affiliate NC-17 with porn? so now when a movie gets a NC-17 rating, REGARDLESS OF CONTENT/QUALITY, it automatically gives it a bad connotation and the rating alone makes it almost impossible for it to succeed. blockbuster stopped stocking NC-17 movies, and netflix is bound to follow that example soon.
you know what MPAA
I AM SICK OF YOU
AND I GOT KICKED OUT OF THE THEATER FOR TRYING TO WATCH BRIDESMAIDS BECAUSE OF YOU
![gokuma:
chelebelleslair:
What is it about Michael that originally drew you to him as an actor?
Well at first I couldn’t stand him; I thought he was a cocky bastard. [Laughs] In the audition [for Hunger] I thought, “F—k, where’s he at?” Then he came back and, of course, it was love at second sight. I think that it was, with Michael, it’s a way to work with someone who gets you — and I get him, so it’s all second nature. What he has is that he’s a very masculine man, but there’s a huge femininity in him. There’s a huge female quality in Michael, of vulnerability, which I think is extraordinary, because most actors would not be that vulnerable. Everyone likes to be the hero or whatever, but in his vulnerability and his femininity there is strength, and I think, for me, that’s his appeal. Basically he’s not removed from you, the audience — he is you. You see yourself in him, and that’s genius. Not a lot of actors can do that.
[SOURCE]
”(…) there’s a huge femininity in him. There’s a huge female quality in Michael, of vulnerability, which I think is extraordinary”
Hm, this is interesting. I’d never think about Michael as “feminine”…
I get what he’s saying. Michael isn’t feminine looking even with his thin, very elegant frame, but he has something that most people would call ‘childlike’. It’s a certain appreciation for things that is often ‘drummed’ out of boys long before they become men. That story from Cronenberg about him standing in the sun smiling is a great example. Women are ‘allowed’ to retain that appreciation longer, simply because they’re female and that sort of wide-eyed joy is acceptable. It’s not right, but it’s true.
That McQueen calls it feminine is probably because he works in a business that is obsessive with gender definitions. Calling him childlike would give a different impression, of someone immature and irresponsible, whereas feminine still allows for a certain level of maturity.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvhgkqYaVz1qa0wj4o1_1280.jpg)
What is it about Michael that originally drew you to him as an actor?
Well at first I couldn’t stand him; I thought he was a cocky bastard. [Laughs] In the audition [for Hunger] I thought, “F—k, where’s he at?” Then he came back and, of course, it was love at second sight. I think that it was, with Michael, it’s a way to work with someone who gets you — and I get him, so it’s all second nature. What he has is that he’s a very masculine man, but there’s a huge femininity in him. There’s a huge female quality in Michael, of vulnerability, which I think is extraordinary, because most actors would not be that vulnerable. Everyone likes to be the hero or whatever, but in his vulnerability and his femininity there is strength, and I think, for me, that’s his appeal. Basically he’s not removed from you, the audience — he is you. You see yourself in him, and that’s genius. Not a lot of actors can do that.
[SOURCE]”(…) there’s a huge femininity in him. There’s a huge female quality in Michael, of vulnerability, which I think is extraordinary”
Hm, this is interesting. I’d never think about Michael as “feminine”…
I get what he’s saying. Michael isn’t feminine looking even with his thin, very elegant frame, but he has something that most people would call ‘childlike’. It’s a certain appreciation for things that is often ‘drummed’ out of boys long before they become men. That story from Cronenberg about him standing in the sun smiling is a great example. Women are ‘allowed’ to retain that appreciation longer, simply because they’re female and that sort of wide-eyed joy is acceptable. It’s not right, but it’s true.
That McQueen calls it feminine is probably because he works in a business that is obsessive with gender definitions. Calling him childlike would give a different impression, of someone immature and irresponsible, whereas feminine still allows for a certain level of maturity.
(via alwaysbeenwithyou)
"They are an unlikely couple — the bespectacled, neurotic artist and his rakish, heartthrob muse — but it may be even more improbable that a pair of Europeans have created one of the more memorable cinematic Manhattans in years."
—
Steve McQueen and Michael Fassbender Team Up in ‘Shame’ - NYTimes.com (via myfilmhabit
)
yes-rakish is the word indeed. and im getting more depressed over the fact that i can’t see this movie this weekend :(
(via sarah-pete-designs)
(via sarah-pete-designs)
HUNGER [Steve McQueen 2008]
Michael Fassbender as Bobby Sands in HUNGER [Steve McQueen 2008]
